What the Oscar nominations got right and wrong — and what it means for the big night

The nominees for this year’s Academy Awards were announced Tuesday morning, capping a season of lesser award ceremonies and critics’ picks that helped influence the Academy's voting decisions. That’s why studios literally spend millions of dollars propping up events like the Golden Globes: It’s campaign momentum, baby!

Between now and the big night on March 10, you will have a chance to catch up with many of the nominees. Many are streaming. Yet some haven’t even played in Columbia. For instance, I hope to catch multiple-nominee “The Zone of Interest” later in the week before it premieres at Ragtag Cinema on Feb. 2.

In the meantime, the nominations give us plenty to consider as we look into the minds of the people who pick the winners and losers of high-minded moviemaking — and offer direction on who will win. Thus, giving you a leg up on the Oscar pool you have going with your most obnoxious friends.

The biggest snubs were the omissions of Greta Gerwig for directing “Barbie” as well as her leading lady, Margot Robbie. I am not of the mindset that box-office winners should be given awards. Yet when a popular movie also happens to have lots of smart and funny things on its mind, I think that’s exceptional.

When audiences have accepted years of subpar comic book adaptations, “Barbie” came off as an oasis of pink-draped intellectualism by comparison. Yes, it is nominated for best picture. But Gerwig and Robbie are critical to the film’s success.

Without Gerwig and Robbie in the mix, the odds “Barbie” catches any best picture heat is next to none. Same for Ryan Gosling, who did score a best supporting actor nod for Ken, and America Ferrara with a surprise get for best supporting actress. The Academy’s interest in this Feminist 101 blockbuster seems surface-y.

Compare that to the reception Yorgos Lanthimos’ “Poor Things” received with 11 nods: best picture, best director, best actress, best supporting actor, etc. All for a film purporting to be a feminist statement. Which I couldn’t help but watch with disgust.

Here is a rehash of “Frankenstein” with a young woman (Emma Stone) being infused with an infant brain and immediately turned into a sex object. The film suggests that a desirous woman is one that is child-like. If this were Woody Allen or Polanski, you’d be protesting by now.

Defenders will say the brain develops quickly in this amorous creation and that leads to an intellectual awakening. Which also leads her to prostitution. Can brainy feminism find a path through sex work? Certainly seemed like a provocative statement in the early 1990s, when the novel which inspired “Poor Things” was released.

But now, when the film isn’t wearing its illicit perversion on its sleeve, it simply feels outdated; hoping its unusual sci-fi conventions will cover up its views on women that are creepy and dull all at once.

Sorry, I had to get this off my chest. I’ve been secretly hating this movie for a month now. Hollywood always has to contend with a reputation that it is full of deviants. But lauding such a film doesn’t do much to detract.

“Poor Things” is bad, but Emma Stone is almost certain to win best actress, especially now with Robbie out of the way. She will face steep competition from Lily Gladstone, who proved to be the highpoint of the somewhat disappointing “Killers of the Flower Moon.” It would be a serious and historic statement to award this fantastic actress. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Stone has reaped a lot of glittery metal of late.

The other big winner Tuesday morning was Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” With 13 nods, it leads the pack and proves the Academy might still reward a smart blockbuster with best picture after all. Nolan certainly has a bead on his fellow best director nominees since there’s an aura that “he’s owed” for over two decades of high-minded Hollywood fare.

Also, a pleasant surprise to see Emily Blunt nominated — the first time! — for playing Kitty Oppenheimer. The long-suffering wife of the titular scientist is perhaps the trickiest of the film’s many tricky performances.

But I think Da’Vine Joy Randolph for “The Holdovers” is a lock for best supporting actress. More likely you will see Robert Downey Jr. win best supporting actor for frenemy Lewis Strauss. While his performance is a bit actorly in the third act of “Oppenheimer,” many voters are probably just relieved to see Downey go back to playing grown-up parts again.

While Cillian Murphy confidently carries “Oppenheimer," many prognosticators believe Paul Giamatti is “owed” for a career leading up to his great performance in “The Holdovers.” Depending on how the Screen Actors Guild awards shake out, we will get a better sense of the category.

Other surprises include seeing Jodie Foster return to consideration 29 years after her last nomination, with a supporting nod for “Nyad.” Annette Benning was also nominated for best actress for the same film. Many people think she’s “owed” an Oscar too. But I’ve not seen it. So I’ve got some catching up to do as well.

Sure, it’s silly to spill so much ink on what awards a bunch of celebrities could win. But, as always, the Oscars are a good barometer as to what film lovers should take serious and how in tune (or out of tune) the industry stays with audience taste. Rest assured, I’ve got more thoughts on the subject in the next month and a half.

James Owen is the Tribune’s film columnist. In real life, he is a lawyer and executive director of energy policy group Renew Missouri. A graduate of Drury University and the University of Kansas, he created Filmsnobs.com, where he co-hosts a podcast. He enjoyed an extended stint as an on-air film critic for KY3, the NBC affiliate in Springfield, and now regularly guests on Columbia radio station KFRU.

This article originally appeared on Columbia Daily Tribune: What the Oscar nominations got right and wrong — and what it means for the big night